So far I have used the expressions “connected” and “cohesive.” However, what one means by these terms may not be as clear as it first appears. Although the principal basis of connected discourse is the logical property – in that it “makes sense” – sociologists and anthropologists have long known that logic, in terms of language, is a cultural phenomenon. The Japanese language has been called “illogical” or simply “alogical,” and consequently often “vague.”

This stereotypical view, however, is misleading in two ways. First, when comparing Japanese ways of rhetoric with Western ways, the socalled Western “logical” foundation normally refers to a logical syllogism which occurs only in limited cases in everyday rhetoric. In the tradition of Western rhetoric (for example, Aristotle's), what is advocated is the rhetorical syllogism (enthymeme) in which the premises and conclusion are only ordinarily probable, not necessarily logically valid. In reality, not all English writings make statements with supporting reasons introduced by for, because or since 01 an if … then statement.

Secondly, the Western logic-based prescription is suitable for certain types of discourse only – both in the West and Japan. As we will find out in the course of this book, Japanese writers utilize, although in different ways when compared with English, logical progressions in certain texts. The difference lies in that depending on genres, Japanese texts show evidence of using a variety of rhetorical structures including and beyond deductions (enthymemes) and inductions (use of examples). One can make a similar statement regarding English texts, but the degree of freedom Japanese writers exercise in writing seems greater.